Emotional response to testing positive for human papillomavirus at cervical cancer screening: a mixed method systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tens-of-millions of women every year test positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at routine cervical screening. We performed a mixed-methods systematic review using a results-based convergent design to provide the first comprehensive overview of emotional response to testing positive for HPV (HPV+). We mapped our findings using the cognitive behavioural framework. Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 09-Nov-2019 and 33 papers were included. Random-effects meta-analyses revealed that HPV+ women with abnormal or normal cytology displayed higher short-term anxiety than those with normal results (MD on State-Trait Anxiety Inventory = 7.6, 95% CI: 4.59-10.60 and MD = 6.33, CI: 1.31-11.35, respectively); there were no long-term differences. Psychological distress (general/sexual/test-specific) was higher in HPV+ women with abnormal cytology in the short-term and long-term (SMD = 0.68, CI: 0.32-1.03 and SMD = 0.42, CI: 0.05-0.80, respectively). Testing HPV+ was also related to disgust/shame, surprise and fear about cancer. Broadly, adverse response related to eight cognitive constructs (low control, confusion, cancer-related concerns, relationship concerns, sexual concerns, uncertainty, stigma, low trust) and six behavioural constructs (relationship problems, social impact, non-disclosure of results, idiosyncratic prevention, indirect clinical interaction, changes to sexual practice). Almost exclusive use of observational and qualitative designs limited inferences of causality and conclusions regarding clinical significance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".